Need a lens for football and basketball

[pnutmnm]

I am a new dSLR owner (T1i) and have the kit lens (18-55mm). It has given me some good captures while my son is on the sideline closest to me, but not in the mid-field. I am looking for a zoom that I can use for football and also when he starts basketball (to save on $$). I was looking at the 85mm. Will this be good for both outdoor and indoor? Any other suggestions? I would like to keep the price low, but (as always) I want something that will be really good for both.

Any suggestions?

 

[C&B Young]

85mm still isn't a lot of reach. For sports you'd typically be looking for a telephoto zoom. Your best entry level option for Canon is the 55-250 IS, which runs around $250. Depending on the available light it may not do a great job indoors, as it's not a very fast lens. I've shot a lot of baseball night games with it and gotten decent results though (usually using a monopod).

 

[ukcatfan]

The lens you mentioned is not a zoom lens. It is a prime lens, meaning that it is always at that focal length. That said, it is probably not too bad of an option depending on how close you are. If the 55mm is still way too far for your taste, then the extra 30mm is not going to give you much more. A more versatile option would be a fast zoom with an aperture of f/2.8 and a focal length range of around 70-200mm. It will cost you at least $600-700 for the cheapest option though.

 

[photo_chick]

Basketball is the thoughie there since school gym lighting usually blows.

I personally wouldn't go for a prime for that type of shooting, but that's me and we all shoot differently.

The 100mm f/2.8 is also pretty slick if your heart is set on a prime. I agree that the 70-200 f/2.8 is probably the best bet for sports if you're looking at new telephoto zooms, but it is pricey. There are also a couple of older used lenses that can do a similar job for less money. Like the 70-210 f/4... it's not as fast as the 70-200 f/2.8 though it is faster than the entry level tele zooms and runs about the same price as a new entry level tele zoom... but it's an old build and some people don't like that.

 

[pnutmnm]

Here's what I got out of the kit lens (18-55). The shot was right at the sideline where I was at.

 

[mom2rtk]

You won't be able to get good basketball pictures without a fast lens with a 2.8 aperture or wider.

It was actually my frustration with taking basketball pictures that led me to finally learn more about my camera.

Unfortunately, the faster lenses can be very expensive. Some of the primes aren't as bad, but you'll have to get a good courtside seat to have the reach you need.

 

[photo_chick]

You won't be able to get good basketball pictures without a fast lens with a 2.8 aperture or wider.

It was actually my frustration with taking basketball pictures that led me to finally learn more about my camera.

Unfortunately, the faster lenses can be very expensive. Some of the primes aren't as bad, but you'll have to get a good courtside seat to have the reach you need.

I wouldn't go as far as to say you won't be able to get the shot with the slower lenses... but you will have to know how to push your equipment to it's limits.

 

[MICKEY88]

a prime lens will limit the shots you can get in sports,

my experience has been my 28-75 works good for basketball, I generally sit in the front row near the baseline even with the basket, that provides good action shots since most of what you want to shoot occurs from base line to foul line ..or I stand at the end of the court,{ usually requires clearance from the home school} the zoom allows single players or multiple player shots.

for football my 80-200 was a good addition, it covered mid field fairly well, I use 2 bodies so my 28-75 is good for shots near the sidelines

 

[Frantasmic]

Look at the Sigma 50-150

For football, the 70-200 f2.8 is your best bet. Other ones to consider, without breaking the bank are the 200 prime, 70-200 f4.0 if the lighting conditions are decent,

For basketball, you will need a good 2.8 or better. The 100mm listed above would be good, reports state that an older lens, the 135mm f2.8 soft focus lens is good for indoor sports. I do well with volleyball with my 85mm f1.8, but you do have to be sitting on the front row of the gym.

If you could swing it, the 135mm f2.0 L lens is awesome.

 

[Iwant2BAprincess]

I use the little basic 50mm prime for my ds's basketball games-it is an upwards programs so seating is right on the floor but it worked well for me.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The lens you will need is dependent on your position and the reach you will need. You will need a large aperture lens (2.8 or larger) for the indoor gyms. I did a quick look at B & H and for a zoom (50-150, 70-200 etc.) you're going to be at $700+ for the non-stabilized Sigmas, Tamrons and Canons. For stabilized lenses it gets real pricey for the 70-200's at $1,700 to $1,800 (Sigma and Canon). As one PP wrote, if you can get close to one of the baskets then you can get away with large aperture prime (50mm). You will be limited in your reach. Because I don't have close access to the action, I use my Sigma 70-200.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

If you're kid has any day football games AND you can talk to the booster club into getting you a sideline pass (this is usually easier than you think if you offer to give them copies for their website and the school yearbook), go rent a big lens and have fun.

These were taken with a Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS USM that I got from www.borrowlenses.com

I splurged and got it for 10 days last year (back to back home games, a day game followed by a night game). It rained cats and dogs that night and lets just say the shots in the rain didn't turn out as well, but it was still fun.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

Oh and a good point for basketball.......pick a spot on the court and manually focus the lens on the spot. Then allow action to run into frame and snap the pics.

Like everyone here has said, the lighting in some of these gyms can be absolutely garbage.

 

[RadioNate]

I too was going to suggest renting. The Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 that is being suggested runs nearly 2k. While I absolutely covet one, I'm still working on scraping 1/2 that together for the 17-55 2.8.

I assumed you were talking about the 88mm 1.8 and not the 1.2L.

I've shot my DS's daytime outdoor flag football with the 55-250 IS that CB&Young mentioned and gotten acceptable results. I'm lazy and stay in my chair but I've been happy with the shots. By no stretch are they as crisp as the 70-200L 2.8 but they are acceptable for mom. I've had to do some post processing cropping but again, I'm happy.

I've done some night MLB shots from the upper deck and those were acceptable to me too. Not stellar but acceptable.

Basketball is a nightmare and I'm just glad my DS doesn't play it any more so I'm no help there! I've shot some NBA but that lighting is so much different than a school gym.

 

[pnutmnm]

I am leaning towards an 85mm 1.8 to use during the basketball season. We only have 2 more standard games left this season for football, so I may forego the zoom until next season. That will free up a bit more $$ to put towards the other lens.

As with everything - I need to get the most bang for my buck. I would like to stay under $500, if possible.

 

[mabas9395]

You might be better off not trying to find one lens that meets both needs (football & basketball). For football, you need length first and speed second. For basketball, you need speed first and length second (IMO).

If all your football games are day games then you aren't dealing with low light and the 55-250 or the 75-300 should work.

For basketball, you give up flexibility with with a prime but you gain speed and sharpness. Personally, I would rather have a lens that can give me a higher shutter speed and freeze the action than a zoom that lets me get closer but with a slow shutter speed. Who wants a close up of a blurry photo?

If I were in your shoes, I would go for a fast prime like the 85mm f/1.8 for basketball(assuming you already have the 50mm f/1.8, since everyone starting out should have one). The 50mm does not focus fast enough for sports (in my experience) and the 85mm is such a sweet lens. The portraits you can get with it as well will just WOW you.

For football, the 55-200 gets good reviews, but if you are serious about photography it might be worth it to bump up to the 70-200 f/4.0, its a very good general purpose mid-length zoom lens.

But when you get to night football games, be prepared to spend some serious money or just sit back and watch the game. For night football you need both length AND speed, which costs some big bucks.

All of the above is based on personal prefference on how I like to shoot. Your milage may vary so be sure to listen to all points of view before you make your decision.

 

[kwitcherkicken99]

I shot these with my 80-200mm 2.8 last Friday. The last one, I was on the opposite side of the field, and pulled out to 80mm.

The longer the better. I picked up that lens used for $500. I want to say I shot these at about 1600 ISO... 1/250 @ F2.8

 

[pnutmnm]

I decided to forego the zoom lens option for this year ( I wanted one for my son's football and there is only 2 weeks left of regular season games).

Should I up to a 100mm for shooting his basketball games and get a 50mm (nifty-fifty) for everyday usage or is that overkill? Or just stick with getting he 85mm 1.4 and start saving for a good zoom lens for next season of football?

 

[Experiment_626]

I shot this image with an old, cheap 70-210mm lens on Kodak Tri-X 400 film, circa 1995 -- the lens would have been at 70 mm for the shot (I blurred the background in Photoshop years later). If you could get a similar shooting position, a 50mm lens on a crop-sensor camera should be just about perfect. I shot from under the basket and to one side (opposite whichever side the ref liked to use for each game), a couple of feet out of bounds.


Vernon Basketball, circa 1995 by Experiment SixTwoSix, on Flickr